I prefer the LOS saga to sleep eternally in the vaults of Konami.
Then it'll just re-appear in another time by some foolish employee to plague us again
It's like suggesting a game where we play as the wizard boss from chronicles.
I'd like a game where you play as the Werewolf from Chronicles and throw parts of the environment at enemies ;P
Grab Dracula's throne and kill him with it.
and make a cocktail.
bone buddies ;DNo comment.
A bit of a side tangent, but I always thought it was pretty silly they felt the need to use a fictional fantasy war as backstory for a Castlevania game, which has always been more grounded in real world myths. There are plenty of interesting legends they could have used. For example, SotN references mythology related to the Goths and the Visgoths. They could have done something with that instead and it would have enriched the lore more than a generic sounding event such as the "Necromantic Wars" ever could.
How about fucking NO.
After the abortion that was LoS2 you really want another Alvarez fueled mistake?
No thanks. This would just continue taking Castlevania down a road further and further away from what it ever was. I mean look at your storyline descriptions and ask yourself does this sound like a Castlevania? It's like suggesting a game where we play as the wizard boss from chronicles.
I'd rather LoS be more obscure than information about the 32x canceled Bloodletting. LoS is a blight on the Castlevania name and was an early sign of what bullfuckery Konami was soon to pull.
Castlevania Lords of Shadow should have been Castlevania Order of the Dragon.
A reboot starting with a story about Dracula should be a story about Dracula.
Not some guy named Gabriel who decides to call himself Dracula.
Castlevania Lords of Shadow should have been Castlevania Order of the Dragon.
A reboot starting with a story about Dracula should be a story about Dracula.
Not some guy named Gabriel who decides to call himself Dracula.
IIRC LoS is the best selling CV is the best selling CV game ever made (and will probably remain like that) so i find that unlikely
And calls his son Alucard because .... Reasons
I speak hypothetically. Sadly, it is one of the best selling in the series and that really chaps my ass.
Speaking of sales, how did MoF and LoS2 fare in terms of sales?
He didn't know his son's name. And decided to call him "Alucard" due to it being the reverse of the name he was given by the people (Dracula). He gave him such a name because Trevor stood for the "reverse" of everything Gabriel stood for.
Because that's not convoluted at all and we could totally get all that from the short cutscenes that Gabriel and Trevor interact in.
To be fair, Trevor was the first i think
Therefore Simon = Alucard
Everyone who stands against Gabula = Alucard
Dumbest explanation ever
I'd like to point out that in the Iga canon, Alucard chose his name to symbolize his eternal opposition to Dracula's monstrous goals himself. It's the exact same logic MoF uses, just in Igavania, Alucard is the one calling that logic instead of Dracula himself in Mirror of Fate.
Mate I understand that and if LOS was released prior to the original games it would be a different story.
But we only know who or what Alucard is based upon previous Castlevania games, that's my point. It's lazy on MS' behalf.
So the idea that anyone playing wouldn't know who Alucard was from the moment he first was identified seems kind of silly. If you're playing this game at all, you're the sort of person who already knows the main canon versions of these characters.
That was the point of them including Alucard in the first place. Selling to IGA fans.
They shouldn't have, in my opinion. It just makes me hate them more.
That was the point of them including Alucard in the first place. Selling to IGA fans.
They shouldn't have, in my opinion. It just makes me hate them more.
Better idea, we should have gotten a better LoS2.